From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Fri Oct 6 00:00:30 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sat Oct 7 00:57:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-F27C1A293DDBFF8B1059D4BB7120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F284627AEB0A8F68223FEF5A8120@phx.gbl>
Dear Regina, interesting, interesting indeed: you are "loving" some words
delivered by an internetserviceprovider?? What does it 'take' for that
thinkg "Regina" to ""LOVE""" some thinkg?
Love & Virtuality, K
[...]! However, if you are a miserable older
>lady, please know you are very much LOVED!
>
>Regina
>
>
>>From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
>>Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:12:10 -0400
>>
>>
>>>Dropper drops the "knowledge"-bomb:
>>
>>And there is MUCH
>>
>>http://livingindryden.org/images/rt13366/lockewoods07062004B.jpg
>>
>>to be "gained" (in terms of looking at the function of
>>>thought - where the content is not cooperating) in looking deeply at
>>>objections to content.
>>
>>>pat
>>
>>
>>ps: Pat, you come across, under all your pea&cocking out&puts&post here as
>>a rather miserable older lady.... "despite" all those decades of a "life"
>>of dialogloglogloging?
>>
>>
>>Kirsten
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>The next generation of Search—say hello!
>>http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Search—Your way, your world, right now!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Fri Oct 6 00:01:20 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sat Oct 7 00:57:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] DonF
In-Reply-To: <C14AE0EF.35BE%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F31641DC9E25433122B38E3A8120@phx.gbl>
Dear "K" ~ ......... "source"??
K
I am delighted to be dialoging
>with someone who is so close to the sources. k
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 03:14:15 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 04:28:27 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
References: <OF7219E54E.FCE54C9D-ON852571FE.00491CEC-852571FE.004A74B9@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <000501c6e8e7$1ff22490$3236153f@DL01>
Rodger __this is not meant as a criticism, but an inquiry;
do you believe that you experience the context of the early Christian living condition, internally & externally, so that its possible to regard dia logos -as they did- ?
Don L: The short answer is no, but those Jews comprising "early Christianity" could read and write. I can read a dictionary, encyclopedia, read scholarly works regarding extant manuscripts from that time and have at least a fair idea of how logos was viewed. It is no secret. Both Tillich and Heidegger as well as others have expertise regarding the Parmenides/Heraclitus fragments respecting the Greek logos. Again, it is no secret.
Rodger:
Or, is it by way of theory/ imagination about what the early Christian conditions WERE LIKE -- and then construct thoughts about the emotions and thought processes they experienced, and based upon that construct; regard dia logos -as they did- ?
Don L: Are we to imagine that being struck by a sword two millennia ago was substantially different from being struck by a sword today? I'm unclear about what you are asking. Have you never checked out the encyclopedia re the meaning of Greek logos? -- Don L
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Message-ID: <009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
.
Why would we not regard dialogue or dia logos as did the "early Christians" as well as at least several translators? Why not see Bohm's notions of meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos? -- dbl
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/424fc99a/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 03:24:16 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 04:28:28 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
References: <OF13AAED61.669511AB-ON852571FE.00452603-852571FE.004578F5@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <000601c6e8e7$2262d670$3236153f@DL01>
Or do you actually mean: Why not see Bohm's notions of meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos? -- Rodger
What are "Bohm's notions of meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos?" First, what are his notions of the Greek logos? Where did he get them? Make them up out of fresh air? Did he intend disregarding 2700 years of interest in the Greek logos?
Is Bohm's statement about giving a special meaning to logos do dialogue to be construed as meaning he intended disregarding 2700 years of interest in the Greek logos? Would a sane man do that? A reasonable man? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:38 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Rodger __ Do you mean to say: why not include early Greek in our notions of meaning, re; Bohm dialogue? Or do you actually mean: Why not see Bohm's notions of meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos?
.
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Message-ID: <009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
.
Why would we not regard dialogue or dia logos as did the "early Christians" as well as at least several translators? Why not see Bohm's notions of meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos? -- dbl
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/3f8b46ad/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 03:36:15 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 04:33:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
References: <C14AA272.3593%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <002601c6e8e7$d2ad25d0$3236153f@DL01>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaningMakes sense to me. -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathryn Arizmendi
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
Pat, what you say absolutely makes sense to me. kathy
On 10/5/06 11:31 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
You are still coming from a position of non - understanding. And it is a kind of non - understanding that can only be "explained at." It cannot be 'explained away'. For one thing, the non - understanding is too huge. And the combination of non - understanding with a presumption of understanding is particularly tricky and can only be addressed, it seems, by suspension of the presumption of understanding.
Has anyone here not had the experience of "Where do I begin?" when contemplating the attempt to make something clear and plain (explain) to a particular person? And it hasn't worked at all using a direct approach? What tends to occur in a group dialogue setting is that the would be, particular attempts to "make clear" just go into the general mix. Maybe even to no avail regarding the original non - understanding, but it richens the "mix" and for those who are giving general attention, much can be gleaned from the "mix."
Understanding of content has never been an inherent necessity in dialogue. We can't each go into the backgrounds of where each of the others is "coming from" regarding the background of their studies. There are enough people on the list now that there is a good chance that someone will hear each of us. And when someone is heard in this way, it is to be celebrated (such as with Mark and Kathy recently). It is certainly not to be denigrated. There are tangential understandings that can be drawn from the exchanges between people that have a particular rapport - even if it is only the simple enjoyment of the pleasantries of rapport.
And there is MUCH to be "gained" (in terms of looking at the function of thought - where the content is not cooperating) in looking deeply at objections to content.
And this is especially so when "personal character" aspects conspicuously pepper content, those aspects that appeal to prejudice.
pat
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:20:43 +0100 Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
Good, you've finally explained it. For you Bohm and dialogue are primarily an intellectual exercise, or a search for what you call truth or that which is. While for me, that is all interesting but secondary. For me Bohm's work is anything but that. It is an attempt to understand the stuff that is going on our heads and to see if there is any way to make that behave more coherently or intelligently than it appears to be at the moment. As a scientist, he put this into a context that was natural to him, He thought of it in terms of physics. His insight was that the mind must act in a way that is similar to the way the quantum world acts, or appears to act. This led him to the idea of getting groups of people to dialogue to together as means of exploring the process of thought. He was not interested in developing a history of the mind or a theory of consciousness. That, I suppose, he left to Krishnamurti.
But in this light, my question to you would be, Do you think that the discovery that DeKooning's space is, on close examination, actually a cubist space, will help make you or anyone a better painter?
don
On 5 Oct 2006, at 02:04, Don Lay wrote:
i can only assume ... -- donF
You assume correctly! I do not find much of what you prate about very interesting (since it seems self-aggrandizing), though I do read most of it as time permits. Right now I'm busy trying to get the bathroom finished so I can hit the road next week, get to the mountains before the leaves fall. -- DonL
And by the way, your pre-Socratic folk heroes ... -- donF
"Your pre-Socratic folk heroes ...". It is unclear why you are disturbed enough to name-call. A couple of weeks ago it was some kind of guilt by association with Hitler because of quoting Heidegger, and before that guilt for quoting a Christian theologian. How sad, how pitiful! I wonder if it makes you feel good, if it elevates your self-esteem. -- donL
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
i can only assume that you didn't read the various clips that i sent some hours ago and that are attached to this post, on the meanings of meaning in the context of dialogue. They have nothing whatsoever to do with idle curiosity although I must admit that curiosity is a valid approach to understanding.
And by the way, your pre-Socratic folk heroes don't seem to have ever mentioned anything that can be translated as meaning. Actually they opposed each other philosophically. P was a fire man and H was into water. Logos has the meanings you assign to it but Bohm did not make up the word "dialogue" as a kind of neologism. It was a common word that described the kind of activity that he was interested in pursuing. if you or I had dreamed it up, we might well have chosen the same word. in fact he, along with the rest of us in our small group, wasn't satisfied with the word because we all felt it could cause confusion. So we settled for group dialogue or Dialogue with a capital D.
And 'meaning' is not limited in Bohm's cosmology to reason or ratio although it certainly includes these amongst its many meanings. What for Bohm was most interesting about meaning as a principle in considering 'the whole' is that it could refer to itself. One cannot speak of the matter of matter nor the energy of energy, but we can consider the meaning of meaning. That's what interested him. In dealing with the whole, meaning in that sense is fundamental.
don
On 4 Oct 2006, at 18:52, Don Lay wrote:
to me, its just an interesting curiosity. -- donF
Surely you don't actually mean that meaning only means idle curiousness. :) -- donL
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important to you. Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me, its just an interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still missing something.
On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Don Lay wrote:
Don L: What is "meaning"?
Here are some clips and quotes, all by Bohm which may help give you a sense of the meaning of meaning in the contexts that interest me here,
The aspect of soma cannot be divided from the aspect of significance. Whatever meanings there may be 'in our minds', these are, as we have seen, inseparable from the totality of our somatic structures and therefore from what we are.
Meaning is capable of an indefinite extension to ever greater levels of subtlety and comprehensiveness, in which there is a movement from the explicate toward the implicate. This can only take place however when new meanings are being perceived freshly from moment to moment.
Basic terms, like meaning, and energy are very difficult to define. We run out of analogies here. Differences become more subtle, similarities abound. The terms are more and more capable of covering everything. They are more general. Words are defined in terms of other words, and eventually, the original word will come back (energy-work, work-energy). So you have to explore the word, and unfold its meaning, begin to perceive it.
Energy is this power, this movement, which acts. It has to be given a direction, and meaning does that. A form. But meaning may also arouse energy. Energy may be in a dormant state, moving back and forth and being trapped, and a perception of a new meaning, may allow that energy to be liberated.
The energy carries the meaning of the matter to a subtler level and gives rise to a backward movement in which the meaning acts on the matter. Physics says that matter and energy are two aspects of one reality. In the implicate order energy and matter are imbued with a certain kind of meaning which gives form to their overall activity, and to the matter which arises in that activity. The middle term enfolds the other two.
The enfoldment by meaning seems to be more fundamental than the enfoldment of the other types [energy & matter]. Meaning enfolds meanings, and refers to itself directly, and this is the basis of the possibility of that intelligence which can comprehend the whole, including itself.
This may give you a better sense of the idea. Etymologically it seems that the noun 'meaning' as in meaningful is closely related to commune, community, communion. But I can find nothing from the Greek. They must have known about it, because it so fundamental, but like other such ideas it probably was never brought to the surface for closer inspection. If you know what I mean.
don
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/71375401/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 03:57:50 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 04:54:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F34B9929522489858A15BE7A8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14B305E.35D6%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
I thought I explained that. When I finish reading all the emails, I'll go
back and resend that one to you.
Best, k
On 10/5/06 5:54 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "k": I have a lot to work with now,
>
>
> Dear k, what 're you 'working' on....... and, 'better': why?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Love & leizure, Ki
>
>
>
>
>
> thanks to everyone who responded.
>> It's informative to read (Bohm's) anyone's ideas in several different
>> sources, and compare what they say. k
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/06 3:22 PM, "Kathryn Arizmendi" <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Lynne. I may eventually put this altogether in some form of
>> essay.
>>> I'd love to compare it with, or better yet, have someone much more
>>> knowledgeable than I - compare it to the things going on in cognitive
>>> neurobiology.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/5/06 3:15 PM, "Lynne Tolk" <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kathy,
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, TAS is an acronym for "thought as system" which is
>> pretty
>>>> basic to Bohm's ideas (there is a book by that name). Basically, my
>> sense
>>>> is that Bohm's concept of thought includes everything humans have
>>>> accumulated, both conceptually and as artifacts. It is not only what
>> we
>>>> have as content for thinking, but shapes how we think. It is not
>> something
>>>> apart from us that we perceive and then respond to, though this is our
>> usual
>>>> understanding, but actually is that in and around us that triggers
>> reflexes
>>>> chemically in our bodies/brains. Some see this as pretty
>> deterministic.
>>>> Bohm, however, saw something else, involved in creativity, that can
>> break
>>>> through and cause insights, which can then alter the entire TAS system.
>> He
>>>> felt dialogue was the best method for achieving these insights by
>> providing
>>>> an opportunity for noticing one's own assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> (I'm new to all this, so this is only my understanding of what I've
>> read!)
>>>>
>>>> Lynne
>>>>
>>>> On 10/5/06 12:19 PM, "Kathryn Arizmendi" <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, Kris. I KNEW I was asking the right person.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I'm not "dying" for this, it's what I'm "living" for, in the
>> sense
>>>>> that it keeps me alive, energized, purposeful, and balanced while I
>> complete
>>>>> (Lento, I hope) the Pollen Path walk of life. And I'm applying it to
>> the
>>>>> structure and teaching of music, as well as anything else that
>> presents
>>>>> itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've met plenty of mental disorders of varying degrees quantitatively
>> and
>>>>> qualitatively. Enough to have opted for compassion (the practice of
>> maitre)
>>>>> rather than persecution and anger, after a long period of searching
>> myself.
>>>>> But -
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid I must plead more help from you. I have no idea what TAS
>> is. I
>>>>> know this is involved. If you don't have time for an explanation, can
>> you
>>>>> refer me to readings - bibliography, websites - please. I would be
>> most
>>>>> grateful. k
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Allow" this
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent
>> ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dying for"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below,
>> especially >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)".
>>>>>>> Perhaps,
>>>>>>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between
>> the
>>>>>>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on
>> perception
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area
>> too
>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>> investigated by our group members.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that
>> you
>>>>>>> might have some information on the relationship of recent
>> developments in
>>>>>>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and
>> intelligence
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas
>> that
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by
>> scientific
>>>>>>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man
>> of his
>>>>>>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current
>> with
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works -
>> certainly
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and
>> all
>>>>>>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the
>> intrinsic
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great
>> importance
>>>>>>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>>>>>>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information
>> you
>>>>>>> are willing to share, best, k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the
>> humanimal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the
>> "trick") :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>>>>>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to
>> 'open'
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> flood&gate to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>> vent u all y
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YES, AND
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time
>> and
>>>>>>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of
>> Dialogue
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>>>>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>>>>>>> directly.
>>>>>>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue
>> we are
>>>>>>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while
>> we
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on
>> inside us
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft
>> LifeCams
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.
>> >>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> m
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=h
>> >>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> m
>>>>>>>> tagline
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> The next generation of Search?say hello!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMT
>> A>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> G
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
>>>> 208 376-1336
>>>> www.lifedirectionscoach.com
>>>> (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Love is never earned . . .
>>>> It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add fun gadgets and colorful themes to express yourself on Windows Live
> Spaces
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.g
> et.live.com/spaces/features
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 04:58:04 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 05:54:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Especially for Kris
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F34B9929522489858A15BE7A8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14B3E7C.35DC%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Some repetition - some new material. I don't talk in matchsticks. Be
warned!
WHY I'm working on understanding the processes involved in cognitive
neurology, and their application to the teaching-learning process. It is
only the first step. More will follow. If one begins this kind of thinking
- inquiry - dialog - communication in the schools at a very young age, maybe
we can have a better society. In some way, even if only through the people
I've dialogued with in this process, it will be my legacy when I move on to
other realms. But I not only try to live by this, I write. And who knows,
the understanding might be useful when I become part of the Implicit Order
again! I keep an open mind. I neither know, nor don't know.
I had a marvellous mentor - educator - theorist - teacher - who developed
her work along Bohm principles. Her influence stayed with me for 35 years,
until I met her again in Bohm. I know there have been advances since her
day. I would like to know what those advances are.
I also hope that somewhere in there, I can find a way to keep people from
hurting each other with verbal putdowns, and other kinds of abuse. Maybe
together we can make a society where the conditions that spawn and
perpetrate such cruelty just don't exist. A society where the one who is
"different" will be valued instead of shut out. Where differences are
explored for their value.
Actually, I'm not "dying" for this, it's what I'm "living" for, in the sense
that it keeps me alive, energized, purposeful, and balanced while I complete
(Lento, I hope) the Pollen Path walk of life. And I'm applying it to the
structure and teaching of music, as well as anything else that presents
itself.
I remain grateful for any help you would like to give, and please know I
value your point of view. I may not agree, but I will try it out more than
once. I'm likely to try to dialogue with you about the points we disagree
on! And I don't come from the place that says one of us must WIN!
Maybe someday, you'd like to tell me what creative venue you prefer. I know
you have one! Someone of your makeup must have a way to give expression to
all that intelligence, sensitivity, and experience.
So, Ki (Kris), I complete this response with purpose, ideals, leizure to
explore them, and love. k
On 10/5/06 5:54 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "k": I have a lot to work with now,
>
>
> Dear k, what 're you 'working' on....... and, 'better': why?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Love & leizure, Ki
>
>
>
>
>
> thanks to everyone who responded.
>> It's informative to read (Bohm's) anyone's ideas in several different
>> sources, and compare what they say. k
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/06 3:22 PM, "Kathryn Arizmendi" <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Lynne. I may eventually put this altogether in some form of
>> essay.
>>> I'd love to compare it with, or better yet, have someone much more
>>> knowledgeable than I - compare it to the things going on in cognitive
>>> neurobiology.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/5/06 3:15 PM, "Lynne Tolk" <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kathy,
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, TAS is an acronym for "thought as system" which is
>> pretty
>>>> basic to Bohm's ideas (there is a book by that name). Basically, my
>> sense
>>>> is that Bohm's concept of thought includes everything humans have
>>>> accumulated, both conceptually and as artifacts. It is not only what
>> we
>>>> have as content for thinking, but shapes how we think. It is not
>> something
>>>> apart from us that we perceive and then respond to, though this is our
>> usual
>>>> understanding, but actually is that in and around us that triggers
>> reflexes
>>>> chemically in our bodies/brains. Some see this as pretty
>> deterministic.
>>>> Bohm, however, saw something else, involved in creativity, that can
>> break
>>>> through and cause insights, which can then alter the entire TAS system.
>> He
>>>> felt dialogue was the best method for achieving these insights by
>> providing
>>>> an opportunity for noticing one's own assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> (I'm new to all this, so this is only my understanding of what I've
>> read!)
>>>>
>>>> Lynne
>>>>
>>>> On 10/5/06 12:19 PM, "Kathryn Arizmendi" <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, Kris. I KNEW I was asking the right person.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I'm not "dying" for this, it's what I'm "living" for, in the
>> sense
>>>>> that it keeps me alive, energized, purposeful, and balanced while I
>> complete
>>>>> (Lento, I hope) the Pollen Path walk of life. And I'm applying it to
>> the
>>>>> structure and teaching of music, as well as anything else that
>> presents
>>>>> itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've met plenty of mental disorders of varying degrees quantitatively
>> and
>>>>> qualitatively. Enough to have opted for compassion (the practice of
>> maitre)
>>>>> rather than persecution and anger, after a long period of searching
>> myself.
>>>>> But -
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid I must plead more help from you. I have no idea what TAS
>> is. I
>>>>> know this is involved. If you don't have time for an explanation, can
>> you
>>>>> refer me to readings - bibliography, websites - please. I would be
>> most
>>>>> grateful. k
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Allow" this
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent
>> ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dying for"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below,
>> especially >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)".
>>>>>>> Perhaps,
>>>>>>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between
>> the
>>>>>>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on
>> perception
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area
>> too
>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>> investigated by our group members.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that
>> you
>>>>>>> might have some information on the relationship of recent
>> developments in
>>>>>>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and
>> intelligence
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas
>> that
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by
>> scientific
>>>>>>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man
>> of his
>>>>>>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current
>> with
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works -
>> certainly
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and
>> all
>>>>>>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the
>> intrinsic
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great
>> importance
>>>>>>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>>>>>>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information
>> you
>>>>>>> are willing to share, best, k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the
>> humanimal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the
>> "trick") :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>>>>>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to
>> 'open'
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> flood&gate to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>> vent u all y
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YES, AND
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time
>> and
>>>>>>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of
>> Dialogue
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>>>>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>>>>>>> directly.
>>>>>>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue
>> we are
>>>>>>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while
>> we
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on
>> inside us
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft
>> LifeCams
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.
>> >>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> m
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=h
>> >>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> m
>>>>>>>> tagline
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> The next generation of Search?say hello!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMT
>> A>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> G
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
>>>> 208 376-1336
>>>> www.lifedirectionscoach.com
>>>> (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Love is never earned . . .
>>>> It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add fun gadgets and colorful themes to express yourself on Windows Live
> Spaces
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.g
> et.live.com/spaces/features
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 05:04:08 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 06:00:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] DonF
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F31641DC9E25433122B38E3A8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14B3FE8.35DF%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Maybe there's a better choice word, but Bohm dialog is based on Bohm's
thinking - alone and in dialog with others. Don was one of that group,
according to Wikipedia. k
On 10/5/06 6:01 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear "K" ~ ......... "source"??
>
>
>
> K
>
> I am delighted to be dialoging
>> with someone who is so close to the sources. k
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.? Get a free 90-day trial!
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.w
> indowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 05:54:49 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 06:51:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F13F9DE508A89B23DEB3DB6A8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14B4BC9.35E1%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Kris - is that you? You're back? Yesgood! I was beginning to think the
Gabriel and Rooster duet didn't make it through cyberspace, or maybe you'd
gone to get fitted with hearing aids - or any number of creative scenarios!
Here goes -
In "Physics and Perception" Bohm says "...Tones have manifold
relationships...To grasp these relationships is essential to the
understanding of music." W.A. Mathieu, who has combined Eastern and Western
approaches to music theory says, "You must know what you are hearing to
master its wisdom." Put the two together - voila! I am working on relating
my understanding of music theory to the practice of improvisation through
the application of Bohm principles.
I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound.
>From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
piano key, etc, etc.
What is that "energy" made of? What set it to vibrating? I'm stuck
thinking that something has to have caused the vibrations that continuously
flow from Implicate to Explicate order, and back again. I also think the
rate of vibration changes for various enfolded patterns - manifestations.
But if it does, why?
After that, it gets into the nitty gritty of pure musical theory such as
rhythm as time-space, then the relationship of movement - proprioreception -
to perception and other cognitive -neurological processes. Then scale
structure, triadic harmony, design, and the tones that are of reciprocal and
overtonal energies respectively. I will happily and gratefully try to
explain, if you have the patience to listen and respond.
Love and Confusion, k
On 10/5/06 5:51 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear "k" ~ I am back. Nogood? "Kris"
>
>
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:03:52 -0400
>>
>> Mark ? When you get back, please let me know. I have some musical points
>> I?d like to discuss with you. best, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/06 4:23 PM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok - not only do I not have time, I don't think I even understand it!
>>>
>>> Seriously, were you a journalist, by any chance? I think I'm picking up
>> the
>>> negative vibes.
>>>> "Time"?
>>>>
>>>> No-time-for-an-"insight"?
>>>>
>>>> ..... I am not sure this just didoes not stinkgkgk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure I have time to answer this!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark, which "insights" are you talking about? Kirsten
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Try the new Live Search today!
>
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTA>
G
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 05:56:30 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 06:53:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F31CF72F71825A06522998EA8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14B4C2E.35E2%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Thanks, again. k
On 10/5/06 5:47 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Zoe ~ I would add "Beyond Psychology" by Rank.
>
>
>
>
> Love & Busting, Kbot
>
>
>> From: Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>> Kathryn , Tas is Though-As-a-System (a book also by Bohm), the 'whole'
>> thinkg, you see... the super&structure that runs the show.
>>
>> As far as what it allows w/o breakdown:
>>
>> It pretty&ugly&much&little boils down to:
>>
>> DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION & LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc
>> etc....
>>
>> good reading on that to start with: Ernest Becker's "denial of death"
>> [I will send you a link to a private website that has a fair amount of the
>> book online,,, but you cant post the link, copy-right issues!]. also:
>> sigmund freud's "civilization and its discontents" [very tasty little
>> pamphlet]... I am in a rush now... Ciao, Kris
>>
>> Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Whatever TAS is - what DOES it allow without causing a breakdown?
>> Thanks, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
>>
>>> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>>>
>>> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>>>
>>> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>>>
>>> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>>>
>>> 'Allow" this
>>>
>>> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
>>>
>>> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>>>
>>> "Dying for"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi
>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> To:
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>>>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below, especially
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)".
>> Perhaps,
>>>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>>>
>>>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between the
>>>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on
>> perception
>>>> and
>>>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
>>>> often
>>>> investigated by our group members.
>>>>
>>>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that
>> you
>>>> might have some information on the relationship of recent developments
>> in
>>>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence
>> that
>>>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas
>> that I
>>>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by
>> scientific
>>>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of
>> his
>>>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current with
>> his
>>>> life.
>>>>
>>>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works - certainly
>> has
>>>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and
>> all
>>>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the
>> intrinsic or
>>>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great importance
>>>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>>>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>>>
>>>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information
>> you
>>>> are willing to share, best, k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the
>> humanimal
>>>>>
>>>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the "trick")
>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>>>
>>>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
>>>> the
>>>>> flood&gate to
>>>>>
>>>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>>>> e
>>>>> vent u all y
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>>>
>>>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> YES, AND
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
>>>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
>>>> is
>>>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>>>> directly.
>>>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we
>> are
>>>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
>>>> are
>>>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us
>>>> and
>>>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
>>>>>
>>>>
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.
>> >>
>> m
>>>>>
>>>>
>> icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=h
>> >>
>> m
>>>>> tagline
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> The next generation of Search?say hello!
>>>
>> http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMT
>> A>
>> G
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
then map the best
> route! http://local.live.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 06:06:05 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 07:03:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Especially for Mark
In-Reply-To: <C149305C.75B3%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <C14B4E6D.35E4%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Lynne ? One of the great things about retirement is that you can really live
in the moment ? follow the impulse ? at least as long as your health and
money allow. The only time frames you have to live in are those set by body
necessities, and the desire to meet with other people who have rigid time
frames controlling their lives. That + no more enslavement to the power
hierarchy. Enjoy! k
On 10/4/06 11:33 AM, "Lynne Tolk" <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
> Mark and Kathy,
>
> I appreciate your challenge to my phrase ?taking myself seriously? - I?ve been
> thinking and journaling about those words. My first impulse was regret over
> the times I have not, but then I realized that would not be taking my history
> (or tas) seriously. I can accept past choices and still make new ones now.
> Part of taking myself seriously means becoming aware of whatever makes up
> ?myself? in a given moment. I don?t have to set a standard or judge that,
> either. It may mean following an impulse when possible (such as joining this
> group, responding to what I read (at least what I perceive of what I read).
> It may mean interacting, with no thought of time, with my 2 month old
> grandson.
>
> I notice that the more I follow these impulses (which have no goal or plan,
> and may or may not bring me pleasure at the time), the happier I am in
> general.
>
> Lynne
>
> On 10/2/06 2:06 AM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree - they're lovely words, Lynne. You mentioned "taking yourself
>> seriously", which really resonates for me, too. Are these words a bit about
>> that? For me, your words so perfectly describe the "something invisible" that
>> holds me back, sometimes, from joining in. In fact, I realise that all my
>> music workshops, which are about "joining in" in one form or another, are
>> probably about me exploring (with my groups) how I join in.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/f1e39177/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Fri Oct 6 07:04:34 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Sat Oct 7 08:04:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] a fragment
Message-ID: <20061005.220435.532.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Hi Kathryn,
I happen to know Naomi Remen; she works at Commonweal, a local .org
around Bolinas.
Owen runs a forum that nobody is yet using for dialoging, but I believe
that it allows you to post pics; I'm not sure.
http://owenthomas.noosworld.com/forum1/index.php
I just checked it out, you can post pics! Look in the "forum features."
Franis
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:30:15 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi
<tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> "Much of life can never be explained but only witnessed."
> - Rachel Naomi Remen, MD
>
> The attachment comes from me it¹s a photo. k
From MarkHarmer at aol.com Fri Oct 6 10:43:47 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 11:40:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
Message-ID: <cbe.c1c85.32577143@aol.com>
Hi Kathy,
I'm around - just a bit distracted at the moment. But... I had to comment on
this because it so resonates with some work I did a while ago.
One of my passions has been physics and particularly the physics of sound -
which is why I ended up recording / editing / broadcasting for so long. When
I've created music for people I've often used sampling (of natural sounds)
and their manipulation in order to create music / sound for community plays. We
did one recently where most of the village took part in one form or another.
The play ran outdoors for a week, and all the sounds were made up of things
gathered locally in the village. The site's at _http://www.mysteryplays.org/_
(http://www.mysteryplays.org/) if you want to see what it was all about.
But as part of the process of sampling you learn quite a lot about sound.
And one thing that really interested me is that there are two bits to a sound, a
chaotic, completely atonal part called the "transient" and the steady-state
bit which carries the "pitch" and "timbre" (sound quality) of that pitch, the
bit where you see the harmonics do their dance as the note carries on.
The transient is totally unmusical - and yet it's the transient, which can
last about 0.1 seconds, which gives meaning to the note which follows. If we
remove the transient we struggle to know what the note is. I've tried it - it
really is amazing. The pitch stays the same, of course, because that
information is part of the steady-state part of the waveform. But remove the transient
and pianos become like violins, drums sound really weird, and a "pinged"
wine-glass will sound like a harmonica - and you can also swap transients around
and your brain will be fooled into thinking the instrument has changed. So,
that initial 0.1 second carries a lot of the meaning. Not about the pitch,
but about what instrument is playing.
If you do this with words, you can swap around the transients and create
totally different words. This is why people with hearing loss have such trouble
- because everything suddenly becomes harder to understand, as if people are
speaking in a foreign language. Missing out the transient clues (which are
high-frequency) means that words have to be understood by their context - which
makes jokes more difficult for people with hearing difficulties to
understand, as jokes often depend on clashes between what's expected and what happens.
I put some illustrations of this on the web at
_http://www.danceofdelight.com/AMOC/Assignment1/index.html_
(http://www.danceofdelight.com/AMOC/Assignment1/index.html)
However, the sounds don't work when you click the graphic - I don't know
why. If you want to hear examples of transients and words, go lower down the
page - the "regular" blue underlined links do work.
The reason I put up the page, is that in organisational projects, often the
chaos at the beginning is how we get a sense of what the project is about as
it settles down. Miss out the chaos (either through not being there, or
because the organisation wants to "tidy up" the initial chaotic process to make it
seem like the project emerged perfect, and fully-formed) and often you will
struggle to make meaning out of what follows.
So I was trying to apply a principle of physics / acoustics to something
much larger. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Mark
I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound.
>From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
piano key, etc, etc.
What is that "energy" made of? What set it to vibrating? I'm stuck
thinking that something has to have caused the vibrations that continuously
flow from Implicate to Explicate order, and back again. I also think the
rate of vibration changes for various enfolded patterns - manifestations.
But if it does, why?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/bc0a0f84/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Oct 6 10:46:52 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 11:43:38 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <20061006100004.C1634238B7@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF2965EF36.146D05FF-ON852571FF.002E8B39-852571FF.00303CD2@dialogos.com>
Rodger __I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW that the
source of Bohm s line of thinking can be traced to the material of
Permenides and Heraclitus.
Do you think the word -source- gives meaning to past events/people, as a
result of how -source- relates to our internal conscious presence? _R
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
Why not go back a lot further, as does Bohm, to Parmenides, Heraclitus?
-- Don L
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/64b08514/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 12:42:51 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 13:40:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
References: <C14B4BC9.35E1%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <001501c6e934$33260a20$db7e153f@DL01>
Kathryn:
I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound. -- k
DonL:
Although I am not "ear oriented", there's something very interesting here ..
the notion of interpretation and the implicate order. Are we saying the
Implicate must be interpreted ... and the interpretation is the explicate
order? Are we seeing a corollary between the physics of hearing and optics?
Kathryn:
>From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
piano key, etc, etc.
DonL:
Is the 'enfolded' order "activated" by the disturbance? What do we say
activates the interpretation, explication? What 'causes' the 'energy
disturbance'? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathryn Arizmendi" <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
Kris - is that you? You're back? Yesgood! I was beginning to think the
Gabriel and Rooster duet didn't make it through cyberspace, or maybe you'd
gone to get fitted with hearing aids - or any number of creative scenarios!
Here goes -
In "Physics and Perception" Bohm says "...Tones have manifold
relationships...To grasp these relationships is essential to the
understanding of music." W.A. Mathieu, who has combined Eastern and Western
approaches to music theory says, "You must know what you are hearing to
master its wisdom." Put the two together - voila! I am working on relating
my understanding of music theory to the practice of improvisation through
the application of Bohm principles.
I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound.
>From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
piano key, etc, etc.
What is that "energy" made of? What set it to vibrating? I'm stuck
thinking that something has to have caused the vibrations that continuously
flow from Implicate to Explicate order, and back again. I also think the
rate of vibration changes for various enfolded patterns - manifestations.
But if it does, why?
After that, it gets into the nitty gritty of pure musical theory such as
rhythm as time-space, then the relationship of movement - proprioreception -
to perception and other cognitive -neurological processes. Then scale
structure, triadic harmony, design, and the tones that are of reciprocal and
overtonal energies respectively. I will happily and gratefully try to
explain, if you have the patience to listen and respond.
Love and Confusion, k
On 10/5/06 5:51 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear "k" ~ I am back. Nogood? "Kris"
>
>
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:03:52 -0400
>>
>> Mark ? When you get back, please let me know. I have some musical points
>> I?d like to discuss with you. best, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/06 4:23 PM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok - not only do I not have time, I don't think I even understand it!
>>>
>>> Seriously, were you a journalist, by any chance? I think I'm picking up
>> the
>>> negative vibes.
>>>> "Time"?
>>>>
>>>> No-time-for-an-"insight"?
>>>>
>>>> ..... I am not sure this just didoes not stinkgkgk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure I have time to answer this!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark, which "insights" are you talking about? Kirsten
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Try the new Live Search today!
>
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTA>
G
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Oct 6 12:52:13 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 13:49:01 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <20061007100003.D11B123947@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFE7DA4ABE.C1FFC2D4-ON852571FF.003B38A6-852571FF.003BB678@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Alternatively, TAS allows -- DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION &
LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc etc... as symptoms of breakdown. _R
.
From: Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
As far as what it allows w/o breakdown:
It pretty&ugly&much&little boils down to:
DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION & LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc
etc...
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/a9b98a61/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 12:56:32 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 13:53:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
References: <cbe.c1c85.32577143@aol.com>
Message-ID: <002601c6e936$187f75b0$db7e153f@DL01>
So, that initial 0.1 second carries a lot of the meaning. Not about the pitch, but about what instrument is playing. -- Mark
Mark, the thought occurs of the "transient" as relating not just to the instrument but to the Whole dia the instrument.
Does this fit? -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
Hi Kathy,
I'm around - just a bit distracted at the moment. But... I had to comment on this because it so resonates with some work I did a while ago.
One of my passions has been physics and particularly the physics of sound - which is why I ended up recording / editing / broadcasting for so long. When I've created music for people I've often used sampling (of natural sounds) and their manipulation in order to create music / sound for community plays. We did one recently where most of the village took part in one form or another. The play ran outdoors for a week, and all the sounds were made up of things gathered locally in the village. The site's at http://www.mysteryplays.org/ if you want to see what it was all about.
But as part of the process of sampling you learn quite a lot about sound. And one thing that really interested me is that there are two bits to a sound, a chaotic, completely atonal part called the "transient" and the steady-state bit which carries the "pitch" and "timbre" (sound quality) of that pitch, the bit where you see the harmonics do their dance as the note carries on.
The transient is totally unmusical - and yet it's the transient, which can last about 0.1 seconds, which gives meaning to the note which follows. If we remove the transient we struggle to know what the note is. I've tried it - it really is amazing. The pitch stays the same, of course, because that information is part of the steady-state part of the waveform. But remove the transient and pianos become like violins, drums sound really weird, and a "pinged" wine-glass will sound like a harmonica - and you can also swap transients around and your brain will be fooled into thinking the instrument has changed. So, that initial 0.1 second carries a lot of the meaning. Not about the pitch, but about what instrument is playing.
If you do this with words, you can swap around the transients and create totally different words. This is why people with hearing loss have such trouble - because everything suddenly becomes harder to understand, as if people are speaking in a foreign language. Missing out the transient clues (which are high-frequency) means that words have to be understood by their context - which makes jokes more difficult for people with hearing difficulties to understand, as jokes often depend on clashes between what's expected and what happens.
I put some illustrations of this on the web at http://www.danceofdelight.com/AMOC/Assignment1/index.html
However, the sounds don't work when you click the graphic - I don't know why. If you want to hear examples of transients and words, go lower down the page - the "regular" blue underlined links do work.
The reason I put up the page, is that in organisational projects, often the chaos at the beginning is how we get a sense of what the project is about as it settles down. Miss out the chaos (either through not being there, or because the organisation wants to "tidy up" the initial chaotic process to make it seem like the project emerged perfect, and fully-formed) and often you will struggle to make meaning out of what follows.
So I was trying to apply a principle of physics / acoustics to something much larger. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Mark
I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound.
>From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
piano key, etc, etc.
What is that "energy" made of? What set it to vibrating? I'm stuck
thinking that something has to have caused the vibrations that continuously
flow from Implicate to Explicate order, and back again. I also think the
rate of vibration changes for various enfolded patterns - manifestations.
But if it does, why?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/3d8c247f/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 13:34:13 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 14:31:29 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
References: <OF2965EF36.146D05FF-ON852571FF.002E8B39-852571FF.00303CD2@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <003501c6e93b$6cd92430$db7e153f@DL01>
I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW ... -- Rodger
Please let me disabuse you of that impression. I am a dummy, or a semi dummy at best; or worst, a half-wit imbecile who thought he could earn a living painting pictures -- that's how much I KNOW. A friend says my problem is that I'm "plumb eat up with dumb-ass". My experience of my self says I must agree with him.
Is it possible however, to talk about ideas ... to take the personas out of this and ask: What is the source of Bohm's understanding of the notion of logos or dia logos that he 'gives a special meaning to'? Bohm did not create the word, logos.
Bohm does specify the Greek logos. Bohm does specifically cite Parmenides and Heraclitus and other early Greek thinkers. Why we would ignore Bohm's specifications and citations? Is it for the purpose of acting and pretending GROUP THERAPY ON LINE? I seem to have heard that when writers cite someone as a source, they are effectively saying -- THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Thanks for the attention to this. I may not fit with db dialogue on line. I'm interested in what qm suggests for modern man, and have thought Bohm relates the mystery of qm with the mysterious nature of the Greek logos which is defined by the word mystery. I have imagined Bohm arrives at the logos notion because of the mysteries implied in qm discoveries.
I do not find it mysterious to ignore the 2700 year history of Parmenidian/Heraclitean notion of Greek logos -- though it is sure as hell strange.
Rodger, what logic (logos) is it that says we should ignore Bohm's having cited and been influenced by Parmenides and Heraclitus as well as influenced by the particular interpretation he read?
Anyone? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 4:46 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
Rodger __I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW that the source of Bohm s line of thinking can be traced to the material of Permenides and Heraclitus.
Do you think the word -source- gives meaning to past events/people, as a result of how -source- relates to our internal conscious presence? _R
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
Why not go back a lot further, as does Bohm, to Parmenides, Heraclitus?
-- Don L
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/268cd918/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 14:05:25 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 15:02:35 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
References: <OF2965EF36.146D05FF-ON852571FF.002E8B39-852571FF.00303CD2@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <003f01c6e93f$b7b287e0$db7e153f@DL01>
I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW that the source of Bohm s line of thinking can be traced to the material of Permenides and Heraclitus. -- Rodger
Is there another source for the words dialogue, dia logos, than Parmenides and Heraclitus? If Bohm cites the source, why would we ignore it? Why would we act or pretend that Bohm was not influenced by early Greek thought?
There's some confusion here, perhaps self-deception (part of the story of my life). Perhaps the confusion regards some difference between Bohm's writings and Bohm Dialogue Online. -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 4:46 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
Rodger __I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW that the source of Bohm s line of thinking can be traced to the material of Permenides and Heraclitus.
Do you think the word -source- gives meaning to past events/people, as a result of how -source- relates to our internal conscious presence? _R
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
Why not go back a lot further, as does Bohm, to Parmenides, Heraclitus?
-- Don L
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/6c31bed0/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Oct 6 14:15:34 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 15:12:26 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
In-Reply-To: <20061007100003.D11B123947@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFA3504C03.4D753123-ON852571FF.003E0308-852571FF.0043582A@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Hi Mark, Hi Kathryn, I really enjoyed this brief on pitch/ timbre
and transient.
I saw a correlation with voice skills, i.e. in the sci-fi DUNE and movie
STAR WARS, both stories told of how a human voice is able to deliberately
separate transient/ implicit meaning from words spoken -- explicit/
dictionary meaning.
We know how this happens unintentionally, when the sound of someones voice
does not -ring true- to their words. But the art of ringing ones truth in
tune with what one speaks seems to me to be developed in two very different
ways.
One way I would describe as transparent, i.e. Mahatma Gandhi -- the other
way I would describe as deceptive, i.e someone not very nice.
To use this skill, words take on secondary importance to the transient
sound in ones voice. A common example is seduction; a person can be talking
about anything, but if the transient meaning is being communicated clearly;
a listener can end up seduced -- or at least, hopefully, end up enjoying
the attempt.
In more advanced language skills, words and transient/ intonation are
aligned with precision to specify increasingly subtle/ influential
meanings. _R
.
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 04:43:47 EDT
From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
And one thing that really interested me is that there are two bits to a
sound, a
chaotic, completely atonal part called the "transient" and the steady-state
bit which carries the "pitch" and "timbre" (sound quality) of that pitch,
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/5469d4af/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Oct 6 14:45:13 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 16:13:52 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <20061007100003.D11B123947@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF6145CF44.26AD21FE-ON852571FF.004396CB-852571FF.00460F16@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Hi Kathryn, dont be so quick to assume your question is being
sidestepped. Unless one has an awful lot of free time for dialogue, there
are just too many topics and questions each day.
For a start, you sound like you might be up to date on areas of
neuroscience -- isnt it incredible how neurology, neurocardiology, etc,
have developed in the past 14 years, since David Bohm died?
So much of the context for what he might have known in the area of
neuroscience has been changed -- largely supporting his views of wholeness.
_R
.
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
I cannot imagine that a man of his erudition had not explored all that
which preceded and was current with his
life.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/3ab634e8/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 16:51:09 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 17:48:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
In-Reply-To: <cbe.c1c85.32577143@aol.com>
Message-ID: <C14BE59D.35FB%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Fascinating. Especially since I have hearing loss. Most people don?t
enunciate well, drop their voices in both pitch and volume when they are
thinking or unsure of what they?re saying ? so that even with two hearing
aids turned up as high as they?ll go, plus reading lips, I can?t understand
them. I?m skimming the posts now. Will reread more completely later.
Thanks for surfacing, and yes ? if you?re busy, I can wait.
Best, k
On 10/6/06 4:43 AM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> I'm around - just a bit distracted at the moment. But... I had to comment on
> this because it so resonates with some work I did a while ago.
>
> One of my passions has been physics and particularly the physics of sound -
> which is why I ended up recording / editing / broadcasting for so long. When
> I've created music for people I've often used sampling (of natural sounds) and
> their manipulation in order to create music / sound for community plays. We
> did one recently where most of the village took part in one form or another.
> The play ran outdoors for a week, and all the sounds were made up of things
> gathered locally in the village. The site's at http://www.mysteryplays.org/ if
> you want to see what it was all about.
>
> But as part of the process of sampling you learn quite a lot about sound. And
> one thing that really interested me is that there are two bits to a sound, a
> chaotic, completely atonal part called the "transient" and the steady-state
> bit which carries the "pitch" and "timbre" (sound quality) of that pitch, the
> bit where you see the harmonics do their dance as the note carries on.
>
> The transient is totally unmusical - and yet it's the transient, which can
> last about 0.1 seconds, which gives meaning to the note which follows. If we
> remove the transient we struggle to know what the note is. I've tried it - it
> really is amazing. The pitch stays the same, of course, because that
> information is part of the steady-state part of the waveform. But remove the
> transient and pianos become like violins, drums sound really weird, and a
> "pinged" wine-glass will sound like a harmonica - and you can also swap
> transients around and your brain will be fooled into thinking the instrument
> has changed. So, that initial 0.1 second carries a lot of the meaning. Not
> about the pitch, but about what instrument is playing.
>
> If you do this with words, you can swap around the transients and create
> totally different words. This is why people with hearing loss have such
> trouble - because everything suddenly becomes harder to understand, as if
> people are speaking in a foreign language. Missing out the transient clues
> (which are high-frequency) means that words have to be understood by their
> context - which makes jokes more difficult for people with hearing
> difficulties to understand, as jokes often depend on clashes between what's
> expected and what happens.
>
> I put some illustrations of this on the web at
> http://www.danceofdelight.com/AMOC/Assignment1/index.html
>
> However, the sounds don't work when you click the graphic - I don't know why.
> If you want to hear examples of transients and words, go lower down the page -
> the "regular" blue underlined links do work.
>
> The reason I put up the page, is that in organisational projects, often the
> chaos at the beginning is how we get a sense of what the project is about as
> it settles down. Miss out the chaos (either through not being there, or
> because the organisation wants to "tidy up" the initial chaotic process to
> make it seem like the project emerged perfect, and fully-formed) and often you
> will struggle to make meaning out of what follows.
>
> So I was trying to apply a principle of physics / acoustics to something much
> larger. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
>
> Mark
>> I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
>> interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
>> the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound.
>>
>>> >From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
>> order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
>> whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
>> piano key, etc, etc.
>> What is that "energy" made of? What set it to vibrating? I'm stuck
>> thinking that something has to have caused the vibrations that continuously
>> flow from Implicate to Explicate order, and back again. I also think the
>> rate of vibration changes for various enfolded patterns - manifestations.
>> But if it does, why?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/a50528ba/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 17:10:22 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 18:07:07 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
In-Reply-To: <OFA3504C03.4D753123-ON852571FF.003E0308-852571FF.0043582A@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C14BEA1E.35FE%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Hi Rodger ? You?re right. I believe that what you?re speaking of is what I
call ?speech music?. I?ve had some very interesting experiences with people
who claimed not to speak English, when I used English, but changed the voice
music and body language to give context to the exact opposite of what I
meant. I also focus on ?speech music? when I interact with horses, cats,
and dogs. I once cared for 27 horses who were accustomed to Spanish. The
music in my voice (I alternated between Spanish and English, careful to use
the same rhythms and intonations) bridged the bilingual gap, and allowed me
to care for horses recuperating from surgery and in pain, with no danger
whatsoever. And I?ve used it to extract from lyrics, the melodies I have
set them to. I have also read that music may have preceded speech. If so,
I suspect it was this. When hearing, gesture, and all the other things that
go into aural communication are stripped down to reading words, I find it
more difficult to get complete meaning, and depend a great deal on the
context clues in other words. I also hear the words in my inner hearing
when I read. Do you? Do you think this can be misleading? k
On 10/6/06 8:15 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:
> Rodger __Hi Mark, Hi Kathryn, I really enjoyed this brief on pitch/ timbre and
> transient.
>
> I saw a correlation with voice skills, i.e. in the sci-fi DUNE and movie STAR
> WARS, both stories told of how a human voice is able to deliberately separate
> transient/ implicit meaning from words spoken -- explicit/ dictionary meaning.
>
> We know how this happens unintentionally, when the sound of someones voice
> does not -ring true- to their words. But the art of ringing ones truth in
> tune with what one speaks seems to me to be developed in two very different
> ways.
>
> One way I would describe as transparent, i.e. Mahatma Gandhi -- the other way
> I would describe as deceptive, i.e someone not very nice.
>
> To use this skill, words take on secondary importance to the transient sound
> in ones voice. A common example is seduction; a person can be talking about
> anything, but if the transient meaning is being communicated clearly; a
> listener can end up seduced -- or at least, hopefully, end up enjoying the
> attempt.
>
> In more advanced language skills, words and transient/ intonation are aligned
> with precision to specify increasingly subtle/ influential meanings. _R
> .
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 04:43:47 EDT
> From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> .
> And one thing that really interested me is that there are two bits to a sound,
> a
> chaotic, completely atonal part called the "transient" and the steady-state
> bit which carries the "pitch" and "timbre" (sound quality) of that pitch,
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/7ae7a70e/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 17:18:52 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 18:15:36 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <OF6145CF44.26AD21FE-ON852571FF.004396CB-852571FF.00460F16@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C14BEC1C.3600%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Hi Rodger ? Yes, to most of what you say. I don?t know as much about the
precise things that have changed since Bohm died as I?d like to. You sound
as though you know a great deal about the topic, too. I try to be on guard
against giving people ?guru-status?, but my own personal applications of his
theories have rung true every time! I am delighted to know science largely
supports his views. I?d like to know also, where science proved him wrong.
So, I thank you. If you have time, perhaps you could briefly answer that
question.
Best, k
On 10/6/06 8:45 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:
> Rodger __Hi Kathryn, dont be so quick to assume your question is being
> sidestepped. Unless one has an awful lot of free time for dialogue, there are
> just too many topics and questions each day.
>
> For a start, you sound like you might be up to date on areas of neuroscience
> -- isnt it incredible how neurology, neurocardiology, etc, have developed in
> the past 14 years, since David Bohm died?
>
> So much of the context for what he might have known in the area of
> neuroscience has been changed -- largely supporting his views of wholeness. _R
> .
> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> I cannot imagine that a man of his erudition had not explored all that which
> preceded and was current with his
> life.
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/6649a746/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 17:33:21 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 18:30:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] a fragment
In-Reply-To: <20061005.220435.532.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C14BEF81.3606%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Thanks, Franis. Photography is not one of my hobbies. I posted the picture
with the intent of its being an image that carried a wordless communication.
I saw it as connected with a thread we pursued a week or so ago on alternate
modes of communication. For me, the photo could be interpreted in several
different ways, all connected to our group. If that's not permitted, I'll
stick to words. k
On 10/6/06 1:04 AM, "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com> wrote:
> Hi Kathryn,
> I happen to know Naomi Remen; she works at Commonweal, a local .org
> around Bolinas.
> Owen runs a forum that nobody is yet using for dialoging, but I believe
> that it allows you to post pics; I'm not sure.
> http://owenthomas.noosworld.com/forum1/index.php
> I just checked it out, you can post pics! Look in the "forum features."
> Franis
>
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:30:15 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi
> <tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>> "Much of life can never be explained but only witnessed."
>> - Rachel Naomi Remen, MD
>>
>> The attachment comes from me ? it?s a photo. k
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialo